ToughButterCup

Members
  • Content Count

    8,769
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

ToughButterCup last won the day on June 9

ToughButterCup had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,225 Excellent

2 Followers

About ToughButterCup

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Personal Information

  • About Me
    I am building a near-passive haus standard, 146 sq m living space house. I am retired, but never been busier.
    I used to develop online teaching and learning resources for several northern universities. I also lectured in IT.
  • Location
    Junction 33 M6

Recent Profile Visitors

15,185 profile views
  1. Bosch GTX 10 XC. Because I'm a Bosch, and lack imagination. Vorsprung durch Selbstbau.
  2. Here's the starts to a plan of attack: 1. ... An 'overdominant rear extension failing to respect the character and appearance of the subject property' , does not deny you the chance to make an extension that isn't over dominant. What is meant by over dominant? Its either dominant or not. Over dominant means - to me - the author isn't quite sure of him(?)self. Chink of light already. '...would adversely reduce the size of the garden and affect the existing sense of openness....' Any extension reduces the size of any garden and always of necessity reduces openness. I smell weakness in the agument application site is constrained by containing a narrow, irregular rear garden compared to other buildings. Is this correct? In percentage terms, how correct is the author? If for example you garden is 20% smaller - would a 20% small extension help things? the result of which would be a cumulative harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. So is the argument that yours is the straw that breaks the Camels back? If so , BINGO. Principle of Consistency applies (more on that later - just got in from work, knackered) 2 How correct is this as the additional bulk would result in a two storey height flank wall on the boundary of a public footpath, which would create an oppressive sense of enclosure to the route, that the existing set back respects. Look for local precedent: Argue along the lines you allowed this here, here and here so why not now. Principle of Consistency applies 3 Same argument as 1 above More particularly, the depth and bulk of the first floor level extension and its close proximity to neighbouring residential properties, results in an overbearing and dominating effect for the residents Can you reduce the depth and bulk? Map? Plan? so we can help more. Sorry this is a bit hasty - in a rush. Regards, Ian
  3. Right. Now we can do something about it.... I'm on a phone browser, let me switch to a decent machine....
  4. Ah Choice Theory. Love it. Quite close in some ways to the notion of heating a house and how warm people feel. All over the house it's a balmy 21 - 22 "I'm cold" comes the plaintive cry. Oh fer gaaauuuud's sake, how much effort did we put in to making sure the undefloor heating stabilised at 20 - 22 . When the FRIGGIN THEORY was based on male perceptions of warmth . Rational Actors indeed.
  5. They're not paying for it @jack, the customer is. Selfbuild is Self-interest writ large. Trades have zero incentive to save on materials. Unless intelligent engagement with the whole build kicks in. How many of us here have - on our own sites - been horrified at the waste, ullage, overage, call it what you will on-site? On ours, I nearly decked one oaf for simply destroying 7 or 8 Durisol blocks. That bit of vandalism caused the loss of £1000 worth of concrete. I've already explained how we adjusted for that bit of rank stupidity...
  6. His technique was cheaper, and altogether simpler. Build a BFO wall. Buy and deploy a big BFO Rhodesian Ridgeback, and make and hang pair of BFO steel gates.
  7. There's no place for emotion on this... let's focus on facts. What does the decision notice say?
  8. All credit to you for having that approach. Knowing why you are not doing what you and others might reasonably expect you to do is challenging, healthy and stops the '.... Why didn't you do it like this ? ...' question dead in its tracks For what its worth, my stock answer to that - often ill-intentioned - question is ' Because I'm not you ' (and add whatever epithet needed to get rid of my annoyance under my breath) Often TFFT. 😕 Wecome . Ian
  9. That word: says it all. I have a great deal of sympathy for all concerned in this sorry matter. Many factors have contibuted to an entirely unsatisfactory outcome for all. The root of it: mis-handled micropolitics, I think
  10. Stuff the objections. Seriously, stuff em. The only thing that matters is the Decision Notice. Address the issues listed there, and you stand a chance. Post the Decision Notice would you please (copy / paste). Thanks
  11. Nearly. During that period, the caravan became a house. So the owner shot himself right in the 10 Year Rule (see below) The Notice is merely quashed. And Earlier the Inspector commented: Ah, thank the Good Lord for the 10 year rule, eh? I think I agree Ian. He is also, pending the outcome of that process, able to submit another Planning Application. But this time, I have a strong feeling that the Enforcement is likely to be as water-tight as @pocster's glazing or @Onoff's shower tray. In other words, he won't be able to live in the field in anything pending a successful planning application. The excellent thing about this decision is that the owner has had to allow the Inspector to have access. We now - six years later - know exactly what is there. And we know what truth claims were made about what is on the field.
  12. Yes @ProDave it is a different technicality. One brought about by the time it took for the wheels of the LPA to grind. I have a significant level of sympathy with the LPA and the person applying for PP. The orignal refusal of PP seemed to me to be spurious: there's that bit of Appeal-based legislation which says that decisions must be consistent. 25 meters North of this person's land is my place, and from the documentation, it seems that mine is more 'visible' than his planned house , yet he was refused. Micropolitics in play there, I suspect. And what does the LPA do about someone who is prepared to destroy the caravan they bought by building a house inside it? I mean thats the kind of thing @pocster would do innit?
  13. Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin. This is worth the read, it'll put a smile on your face. Remember yer man who hid his house behind bales and then took the bales away revealing a palladian mansion with all the bells and whistles? Well this is the West Lancs version of that. Humble, gritty, adds a few interesting twists - but essentially the same. Sit tight. Full references at the end. Not 25 yards away from our site lies a caravan in a field. Not any old caravan: a transforming caravan, a magic caravan which used to be one, but now isn't. How do I know? The Inspector (very nice man) says so ( '...on the balance of probabilities ...' ). The occupier of the caravan in the field applied for PP, failed, appealed, failed, got an Enforcement Notice for his troubles , appealed and well - judge for yourself. He was living in the caravan pending the award of planning permission: but that was denied at Appeal. The ensuing Enforcement Notice was also Appealed but that Appeal was quashed. But why? Well, what used to be a caravan isn't one any more. Ya wot? See, he blocked it out FROM INSIDE. Built some foundations, and blocked the thing out from inside. Built a bathroom living room and kitchen. But for all the world, it looks like a caravan. Except in winter when you can see it better (no leaves) The bog window is now filled with breeze blocks, the bottom of the caravan sports - you guessed it - breeze blocks. Try towing the caravan and '... in fifteen seconds ...' this caravan would self destruct. So its now a wee hoos ( as @ProDave and the Scottish brethren would say). And since the LPA didn't demonstrate the Enforcement Notice was quashed. So, to sum up, what was at one time a caravan ( using the legal definition of a caravan) was made into a house during the 5 or more years that this little saga has been going on. Moral? If ya can't take a joke don't ........ https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3241296&CoID=0